Don'T Put Aside The "Time Limit Of Life And Death" For Industrial Injury Identification.

Ms. Cheng, a shoe factory in Shenzhen, suddenly collapsed in the workshop and was taken to the hospital until she was declared dead at 13:35 on December 31st.

The family members required to identify work-related injuries, but they exceeded the statutory requirements.

The time limit was rejected by the people's social department, and the two sides finally lost court.

"Guangdong Province industrial injury insurance regulations" stipulates that workers in the working hours and jobs, the sudden death of the disease or within forty-eight hours of the rescue of the death of the same injury.

The Shenzhen Municipal Social Security Bureau believes that the rescue of "more than 48 hours" does not meet the requirements, so it is identified that Ms. Cheng does not belong to or do not consider injury as a work-related injury.

Faced with such a tragedy, it is easy for public opinion to draw a negative conclusion that "rescue over 48 hours is not a work-related injury".

But if we comb the wording of the relevant articles and the legislative intent behind it, we will find that is not the case.

There are still many differences between judicial judgment and common sense judgment regarding the identification of industrial injury and death treatment. There are still many misunderstandings and misunderstandings among the public.

Work place, work reason, harm comes from work.

The essential characteristics.

According to the law, the death of a sudden illness or death within 48 hours during the working hours and jobs is considered to be the same as industrial injury.

The so-called "work injury" expression means that the above conditions can enjoy the same "work-related injury treatment", we can see that the scope of the law for industrial injury has been relatively broad.

In many countries and even developed countries, their own disease attacks or deaths are not recognized as work-related injuries.

The current system arrangement for industrial injury in our country is not only to provide the bottom line benefits protection for the workers who are dying due to illness, but also to avoid the huge cost generated by the concrete case appraisal.

Just imagine, if all the workers who die on the job because of illness, all enterprises are required to be treated according to the treatment of workers' death. The latter may be overburdened.

In view of this, in order to balance the interests of enterprises and reduce the risk of unlimited compensation, the law only has the restriction of "injury within 48 hours".

However, the "48 hours" rule is directed against the condition of the disease rather than the direct work. If the injury is caused by occupational diseases or accidents at work, it is not subject to this time limit.

In this regard, "rescue over 48 hours is not an injury" is not accurate, but Cheng's death and work are not necessarily causality, and the loss of family members is inevitable.

There must be a limit to the law and the "48 hours" limit of industrial injury. Naturally, it has its reasonable intentions and corresponding considerations, but it has also created some ethical dilemmas: if the family members insist on treatment, they will probably lose their treatment because of "overtime"; if they choose negative treatment, they may get considerable compensation.

In this regard, it is necessary to recognize that industrial injury insurance is not omnipotent, just as some experts stressed that the purpose of work-related injury insurance is not to punish and compensate, but to enable employers to change production conditions, reduce work-related injuries and make workers less vulnerable.

After witnessing too many heavy cases, can the functional departments make up for the defects of the "life and death time limit" through other relief mechanisms outside the law? And the victims may also try to choose medical insurance and social security other than industrial injury insurance to win more protection for their rights and interests.